Subject: [Dime] 3588bis - ABNF & M-bit flag for AVP

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 15:52:27 +0200

Hi All, 

We had several discussions on the link between ABNF specifications and
the related M-bit setting for fixed, required and optional AVPs.
We concluded that both notions were decoupled and this is documented in
3588bis draft in the section 1.2.4.

However, I think that it could be useful to provide further
clarifications on this topic in order to help application designers in
their specification. This could be done the 3588bis or in the guideline
document (no preference).

My proposal would be to add that, normally, fixed and required AVPs in
the command code and Grouped AVP ABNF specifications should have the
M-bit set, as these AVPs will always appear in the command or the
grouped AVP. However, we may have some use cases in which fixed or
required AVPs need not to be understand by all the Diameter peers (e.g.
fixed AVP only useful for intermadiate nodes). In such cases, a fixed or
required AVP in ABNF may have the M-bit flag cleared.

Any opinion on this proposal?

BR,

Lionel

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

---

From: "Sarkar, Biplab" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 22:15:15 +0530

Hi All,

I think its a good suggestion. I think an AVP is termed as mandatory with its association to the command. So the relationship AVP->Cmd needs an attribute about their occurrence and interpretation. And also there should be some way to say that an AVP can't be in a particular command AVP !-> Cmd.  So the current approach to associate the M-bit to the AVP needs some change.

Thanks & Regards
Biplab 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]
Sent: Sat 8/2/2008 7:22 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Dime] 3588bis - ABNF & M-bit flag for AVP
 
Hi All, 

BR,

Lionel